I’m sure some parents use it as a substitute to avoid saying “son of a bitch” in front of their kids, if that helps

Sure, I mean pretty much by definition. What does that have to do with your question?

Are you under the impression that they don’t?

Well, yeah. That’s not really in the same category or ever really disputed

No, that’s my evidence that it wasn’t ubiquitous and typical.

Maybe not just your social circle, but social-circle-specific.

No, this was just your social circle. I know literally zero people who ever bought into any of that crap

From England straight to Louisiana is quite a leap

Which wouldn’t have the potential if the larger sun didn’t form first to create the gravity to allow the rest to form.

This is simply incorrect. The gravitational potential of the body would be there regardless of what else is going on around it. And either way, the OP’s question was not about some hypothetical where the sun doesn’t exist, it’s about where energy came from in the real world.

Star != Sun is just pointlessly pedantic. You’re not trying to learn anything, just be a smartass.

? The OP’s question was literally “is there energy on earth that didn’t come from the sun.” I am not the one being pedantic here.

Nuclear materials were formed in supernovas. They wouldn’t exist in the first place without a star.

Well, yeah, sure. But that star is not the Sun.

Earth wouldn’t have coalesced without the sun in the middle. Otherwise we’d still be a gas blob.

I mean, sure? It wouldn’t be a gas blob, but it would be a very different system. But that still has nothing to do with it – even if the gravity of the sun influences how the earth coalesces, it’s still not where the thermal energy of the core came from. That came from the potential of the dust itself.

The heat in the Earth’s mantle and core comes from the gravitational potential energy of the original stellar dust clouds the Earth originally accreted from. So, geothermal energy mostly isn’t. And there’s also evidence that a few natural uranium deposits have undergone natural nuclear fission chain reactions. That one’s a pretty negligible amount, though. Other than that, no, it all traces back to the sun.

Yes, your aunt has (probably) signed up for what’s essentially a scam. This is their whole business model, they know timeshares sound better than they end up being, so they intentionally trick people into signing contracts that are very difficult to get out of, so they can’t just dump it the moment they realize they don’t want it anymore.

Like others have mentioned, there are various options (donations/sponsorships/grants) that larger projects will generally have some of, but for smaller projects (99% of what’s out there, by project count if not usage), the answer is simply “it isn’t.” It’s done as a hobby, as a resume booster, or with the hope of eventually becoming big enough to hit one of those revenue streams.

That’s… An extremely bizarre take on what happened, and on whether selling would be a good idea. The stock market almost never has anything to do with electoral politics, and electoral politics almost never have anything to do with what your market position should be.

You are so gullible

Psychonauts 1/2. The first game literally takes place at a summer camp. Second one has basically the same vibe.

“digestible” and “nutritious” aren’t social constructs, so no. If your body can transform it chemically in a way that produces energy, it’s food. Otherwise it’s not. The same things are food regardless of your culture.

I’m really trying to make this one make sense, but it’s just not happening. Can you rephrase?

Well, for the most part, it’s just flowing into the ocean, like it always does. Evaporation over land is a very minor part of freshwater loss.

Everyone is talking about dominant and recessive genes, so I just want to clarify a couple things.

The way your body directly uses genes is as a blueprint to construct proteins. Your cells are always producing proteins from the genes in all your chromosomes. It has complex ways of regulating how much of each it produces, but your body doesn’t care what chromosome it’s coming from. Once an embryo is fertilized, there’s really no distinction between “mom” chromosomes or “dad” chromosomes, as far as the embryo and its protein machinery are concerned.

“Dominant” and “recessive” characterization is about how those proteins affect your body at the macro scale, not whether your body actually uses the gene and produces its proteins – it always does that. For example, brown hair is a dominant trait, and blonde is recessive. But this is because producing any amount of brown pigment will make your hair brown, regardless of what other pigments you’re making, simply because it’s darker. Literally the same as combining blonde and brown paint. It has nothing to do with whether the genes are actually being expressed – the brown hair gene doesn’t stop the blonde hair gene from making its pigments.

Perhaps “always-on display” is clearer? Keeps it from turning off when idle